Recommended Posts

I don't believe in a God who would purposely try to fool us by planting "false evidence" all around us and then making us choose between our minds and the Bible.

Neither do I. I think it takes a lot of work to make evolution compatible with Mormonism, but the first step is to admit that we really don't know much of anything. Nobody really knows how this planet originated, but we make our best guesses based on the evidence.

Share this post

Link to post

How can you unequivocally rule any of these out, even the far-fetched ones? Where is the direct evidence that it isn't so? I'm not admitting to subscribe to any of your theories here, but I do wonder where you stand on the reliability of these ideas.

My comment wasn't about "unequivocally ruling out" any of the scenarios. My comment was about believing in any of those scenarios. There is a huge difference between the two.

Whether this makes someone "stupid" (your word, not mine), or just demonstrates the line of thought encouraged by religions to foster belief, each of us must decide for ourselves.

Share this post

Link to post

Neither do I. I think it takes a lot of work to make evolution compatible with Mormonism, but the first step is to admit that we really don't know much of anything. Nobody really knows how this planet originated, but we make our best guesses based on the evidence.

I think God has revealed how the earth was created to some, but, alas, not to me. FWIW, I agree with you and KTG. In my experience, God does not lie. The evidence of the earth fairly cries out to us, as truth from the dust. After 15 years on the Eyring-l list, and much pondering, I have changed my views from anti-evolution, to pro-evolution. I am certain this is how it was done.

I think early Mormonism was much more friendly to the idea of evolution than, say, 1970's Mormonism.

Share this post

Link to post

That really only would make sense if our "earth" was created from our prexisting earth. In other words, this world was "reorganized" for those of us born after Adam.

You mean like making a cake...put all needed ingredents in it for the desired outcome. I thought we were looking for "possible" theroies".

Well, I know that my brain believes in evolution AND my spirit believes that God created all things. The details are out there somewhere, I'm sure, but until I understand, I occasionally try to look at all possibilities. This thread is one of those times.

Share this post

Link to post

What leads you to believe those things while rejecting what we are told in the scriptures?

How do you know that we can accurately date things based on scientific methods?

I don't think katherine's rejecting what's in the scriptures but rather admitting that a traditional understanding of the scriptures doesn't reflect reality. So, like a reasonable person, she is adjusting her understanding accordingly.

Share this post

Link to post

The scientific evidence contradicts itself as much as the so called traditional interpretation of the scriptures contradicts science. I don't accept evolution because there is no compelling evidence that it occurred. This does not mean that I reject it all together. It may have occurred, it may have been how we got there. But presently the evidence simply not there. There is not, in my opinion, a theory that address all the evidence we currently have. The science that argues, for example, that there are groups of people who have been isolated for thousands of years, for example, is built on too many assumptions. We simply don't know how long they have been isolated. We don't know enough about how dna works to make any conclusions. Virtually all research starts with a theory and goes out to find the evidence to support the theory. If you search hard enough, you can find evidence to support virtually any theory.

Share this post

Link to post

Thanks for that link, interesting. I think that the bottom line is that, if the full picture of how life on earth came to be were on an 8.5/11 sheet of paper, the amount of evidence we have would be the size of a molecule. Religion is not science, and the bible is not a historical text. It uses historical events to teach gospel principles. We just don't have enough information to draw any conclusions. I am certain that many of the evidences we have will be found to be superfluous. Irrelevant side bars to the greater flow and irrelevant to the overarching story. And I am certain that we should not use the bible as any basis for scientific investigation any more than we should use a talk by Pres Monson to discover the mysteries of the human psyche.

Share this post

Link to post

I notice that "this guy" quotes with approval a talk by Brigham Young given on 14 May 1871. What do you suppose he would have to say about what Brigham Young said just a week earlier?

Do you not all know that you are the sons and daughters of the Almighty? If you do not I will inform you this morning that there is not a man or woman on the earth that is not a son or daughter of Adam and Eve. We all belong to the races which have sprung from father Adam and mother Eve; and every son and daughter of Adam and Eve is a son and daughter of that God we serve, who organized this earth and millions of others, and who holds them in existence by law.

Brigham Young, 14 JD 109-114 (7 May 1871)

Share this post

Link to post

The scientific evidence contradicts itself as much as the so called traditional interpretation of the scriptures contradicts science. I don't accept evolution because there is no compelling evidence that it occurred.

Then why is it taught at BYU? The brethren seem to think there is compelling enough evidence to include it in their core curriculum for secular learning. Or are they just "selling out?"

Share this post

Link to post

I notice that "this guy" quotes with approval a talk by Brigham Young given on 14 May 1871. What do you suppose he would have to say about what Brigham Young said just a week earlier?

Brigham Young, 14 JD 109-114 (7 May 1871)

I would guess that he would say that people of Brigham Young's era did not know anything about dna. All they had were bones and observation and without the support of additional disciplines, like we have now, the evidence of evolution was not enough to convince non scientists. I believe that Brigham Young was open minded enough that, if he were he alive today and pondered the information we have now, he would have a different perspective.

Share this post

Link to post

I would guess that he would say that people of Brigham Young's era did not know anything about dna. All they had were bones and observation and without the support of additional disciplines, like we have now, the evidence of evolution was not enough to convince non scientists. I believe that Brigham Young was open minded enough that, if he were he alive today and pondered the information we have now, he would have a different perspective.

Maybe. On the other hand, if Brigham Young were alive today he might say

Geologists tell us that it [the earth] was here millions of years ago. How do they know? They know nothing about it. But suppose it was here, what of it? Adam found it in a state of chaos, unorganized and incomplete. Philosophers, again, in talking of the development of the products of the earth, for instance, in the vegetable kingdom, say the little fibres grew first, then the larger vegetation. When this preparatory stage was completed then came the various orders of the animal creation; and finally man appeared. No matter whether these notions are true or not, they are more or less speculative. Adam came here and got it up in a shape that would suit him to commence business. What is the great mystery about it? None, that I have seen. The mystery in this, as with miracles, or anything else, is only to those who are ignorant.